Fig. 2

16p11.2\({}^{+/-}\) mice exhibited deficits in social novelty and recognition memory comparad to WT controls. A-D Three-chamber test (TCT). (A) Schematic of the sociability phase of TCT (E: empty cage; S1: stranger mouse) and representative trajectories of mice. (B) 16p11.2\({}^{+/-}\) mice exhibited comparable sociability compared to WT mice (WT: n = 10 mice; 16p11.2\({}^{+/-}\): n = 9 mice. Two-way ANOVA). (C) Schematic of the social novelty phase of TCT (S1: stranger mouse; S2: novel stranger mouse) and representative trajectories of mice. (D) 16p11.2\({}^{+/-}\) mice exhibited social novelty deficit (WT: n = 10 mice; 16p11.2\({}^{+/-}\): n = 9 mice. Two-way ANOVA). E Direct social interaction (DSI) test. 16p11.2\({}^{+/-}\) mice showed a significant reduction in social time compared to WT mice (WT: n = 11 mice; 16p11.2\({}^{+/-}\): n = 10 mice. Student’s t test). F-I Novel object recognition (NOR) test. (F) Schematic of the habituation phase of NOR test (Obj1: object1; Obj2: object2) and representative trajectories of mice. (G) 16p11.2\({}^{+/-}\) mice and WT mice showed no obvious preference over two identical objects (WT: n = 10 mice; 16p11.2\({}^{+/-}\): n = 9 mice. Two-way ANOVA). (H) Schematic of the recognition phase of NOR test (Obj1: object1; Nov: novel object) and representative trajectories of mice. (I) 16p11.2\({}^{+/-}\) mice exhibited no obvious preference over novel objects (WT: n = 10 mice; 16p11.2\({}^{+/-}\): n = 9 mice. Two-way ANOVA). Data are presented as mean ± SEM. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001, and n.s.: not significant. Detailed statistical information is presented in Additional file 2: Table S1